MS Drops Licensing Restrictions from Web Server 2008

Channel Guy writes "According to a report from CRN, Microsoft plans to allow users of the Web Server SKU in Windows Server 2008 to 'run any type of database software with no limit on the number of users, provided they deploy it as an Internet-facing front-end server.' The previous limit was 50 users. Microsoft's partners expect the changes to go a long way toward making Windows Web Server 2008 more competitive with the LAMP stack, against which Microsoft has been making headway in recent months."

Comments

Still have to pay for the OS

[filbranden]

With Windows Web Server 2008 you'll still have to pay for the OS. With LAMP it's free.

Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

In any case, this shows that Microsoft is getting desperate, and even with this I don't think they'll get any market share from LAMP.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[calebt3]

Still, organizations that shy away from Windows Server because of the sheer number of licenses they would have to buy on limited funding (think: schools) will now be more open to it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[poopdeville]

This is silly though. Web services only need one "user" -- the user that connect to the database on behalf of the server.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[a-zarkon!]

And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees...either through licensing of connections or functionality. I must confess that I find this pretty amusing. I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[a-zarkon!]

"Will install Apache and MySQL for beer and nachos" -Me

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Osty]

Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista. By that same rationale, Windows Server 2003 was "just" the server version of Windows XP. However Windows Server 2003 had different SKUs than XP with different licensing models, and you can expect that Windows Server 2008 will be the same. Windows Server 2008 SKUs are much more inline with what is available for 2003 (though the total number is higher due to the duplication of editions for "without Hyper-V" versions). For the Server product, differentiation is more about licensing than features (the only feature difference between Standard, Enterprise, and Data Center is the lack of clustering in Standard).

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[poopdeville]

Even if that's true, it's still far cheaper than Windows, and getting cheaper all the time. The better Debian and Ubuntu get, the cheaper it becomes.

Still, I'd rather OS X. But happily I use Kubuntu at work.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

If you're a hosting service, or if you're serving up databases for multiple web clients, then it's quite possible that you might have dozens of different users. I don't know about you, but when I've got multiple databases on a server for different people, I don't tend to want to give everyone access to the entire show.

Still, LAMP is free, so unless they're going to start giving away Server 2008, they can keep it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Stamen]

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski "Windows? Not in this dress!" - Jamie Farr

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

Well, if you don't have any experience with *nix, that's true, but as a guy that has been using various flavors since about 1990, the above is just nasty flamebait. The really neat part is that I can go to my managers and say "Yeah, it will probably take a bit longer to get that Samba domain controller rolled out for accounting, but guess what, your licensing fees forever is $0.00."

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Clover_Kicker]

And how long do you think jwz has been using *nix?

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[filbranden]

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski

Agreed, but Windows costs more than the double of what Linux costs:

• Windows requires as much or more administration than Linux.
• Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.
• If you have a problem with Windows, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold your hand and fix it for you quickly. Most times I needed technical support for a commercial product, I realised I would fix the problems myself quicker and better, if I could do it (if I had the source).
• If you have problems with bugs in Windows, you have to wait for Microsoft to fix it, if they decide to fix it.
• With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU and NIMDA in Linux.
• With Windows you have to spend with server licenses, client licenses, extra CALs if your clients are not Windows. If that was not enough, you still have to pay for an antivirus. With LAMP you don't need any licenses. Not to mention that you have to manage all the licenses. And don't lose any media, it's not like you can easily download it from their site!

So, while Linux is not gratis, it's still much cheaper than Windows. Especially for Web systems such as LAMP, most distributions allow you to install it as easily as one command (or even a graphical installer), and you can even download a virtual machine that you can use as a development or testing environment without even having to install anything.

If there is one thing that still can be cheaper in Windows, is that you can hire a Windows administrator for cheap, while a Linux administrator would probably require a higher pay. But this is changing with the popularization of Linux, there are more Linux admins in the market today. Another point is that you get what you pay for, the cheap Windows administrator probably won't do that good a job, and if you want quality you'll probably have to pay as much as you would pay to a good Linux administrator anyway.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[unoengborg]

OS-X is very nice for the desktop, but I would stay away from it on the server side, not because there is all that much technically wrong with it, but because Apple don't seam to get the server market.

By hard earned experience with Apple server products I have learned that you can't trust them to support their products over long times. The all of a sudden discontinues products without any resonable migraton paths to the successr, if there even is a successor. E.g. they dicontiued A/UX and replaced with an Apple version of AIX that they then dropped totally in just a couple of years.

When they distribute updates they have more than once totally destroyed, customized settings, and the open source software that comes with the server version of MacOS-X is often incomplete or lacking in functionality compared to the same software on Linux or Solaris.

Chosing between Windows and Mac, I would choose Mac any day. MacOS-X is at least simple to use.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Clover_Kicker]

You don't think jwz was advocating for Windows, do you?

http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[joeytmann]

Actually licensing for public schools is dirt cheap when compared to private business licensing.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Rytr23]

As far as MS is concerned, if SQL server is your back end, then the fact that its a single ID being used by your web service is irrelevant.. every user who hits your through your site requires either a CAL or you need to buy a per processor license.. I wasn't aware they charged any sort of connection license for connecting to IIS other than the OS cost..

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[totally bogus dude]

Apple don't seam to get the server market

I hear they've got the sewing market all stitched up, though.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jacquesm]

Even if they're going to give it away they can keep it. There are far more benefits to open source than sticker price alone.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[filbranden]

You don't think jwz was advocating for Windows, do you?

Of course not! But, in my opinion, his quote was used in a context to suggest just that.

That or my sarcasm sensor is broken... :-D

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

Although they both share a line of kernels, its not accurate or useful to say that Server 2008 is the server version of Vista.

That's like saying that Server 2003 is the server version of XP.

In addition, the article is about the licensing model of the web-server version of server 2008. No cals, just a flat fee, etc.

There's no concept of an 'ultimate version' on the web-server version of the server 2008.

The web-edition is what version it is.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[bucketoftruth]

You said it so incredibly well. The baseline costs are going to be about equal. But, you hit the wall so fast when trying to get anything done in a windows environment due to licensing restrictions and the excess time spent crawling through the interface to do the simplest task. Until you've seen someone drop a preconfigured kick-start system onto a rackload of servers and have the entire thing running in an hour you haven't seen the power of linux.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Planesdragon]

"Yeah, it will probably take a bit longer to get that Samba domain controller rolled out for accounting, but guess what, your licensing fees forever is $0.00." Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea. As is if it takes more than ten hours extra to configure it, over the lifetime of the domain controller. (The Auditor's laptop takes an extra hour of your time to work with Samba? you need to spend a week to train your replacement when you leave?)

After initial purchase, the typical company pays "licensing fees forever" of $0.00. Anyone who doesn't is just throwing away money.

Now, there are LOTS of good reasons to use Linux over windows. But cost isn't one of them for any company not in the business of producing Linux-based widgets, or providing a service in a Linux/Unix-based industry. This is an inherent factor of the bazaar; if time is money, and you're not a native of the town, it's simply more expensive to go through the bazaar and find exactly what you need instead of just stopping by the cathedral and picking up what the priest is handing out.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Percy_Blakeney]

And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees

I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...

I think you've alluded to the most interesting part of this story: Microsoft is being forced to lower their prices (or even eliminate them) in order to compete with free software. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course -- they haven't been able to charge for IIS or IE, for example, due to competition from free software -- but it seems that it is happening frequently.

If I had stock in MSFT, I would start selling it once they announce that they've made any significant reduction in the cost of MS Office; it's one of the biggest cash cows for the company, and any sign of weakness in that space is their worst nightmare.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it so incredibly well. The baseline costs are going to be about equal. But, you hit the wall so fast when trying to get anything done in a windows environment due to licensing restrictions and the excess time spent crawling through the interface to do the simplest task. Until you've seen someone drop a preconfigured kick-start system onto a rackload of servers and have the entire thing running in an hour you haven't seen the power of linux. Uh, you can script all Windows configuration. There's plenty of ways to fast roll-out Windows servers.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[calebt3]

Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea Sorry, but I have to nitpick. The $500 domain controller will still need some time to configure. Maybe Samba starts being a waste of time at 55 hours?

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[calebt3]

Oops, I meant 15 hours.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[hairyfeet]

Actually you could probably take any average Windows Admin and switch him to Xandros Server quite easily. I just started using the trial (after becoming hooked on the rock solid Business Pro) and man is this thing easy to run! I just love the xMC, it is just too easy to manage.

I know some hate Xandros for the Microsoft deal (which I believe that, unlike Novell, they actually paid Microsoft for access to the documents for the API's they wanted to ensure compatibility with) but they really do make a rock solid, easy to use product. And the ease of use has allowed me to convert folks that I thought would NEVER touch anything but Windows. And I know that with the familiar xMC layout I won't have a hard time explaining to PHB's what it does. And they have a free trial if you want to load it into a spare box or a VM and give it a go.

I think as more and more Linux distros become easier to setup and manage that we'll be seeing a lot more "deals" like this.Microsoft has no problem losing a little money on a product if they can use it to kill competition. But server 2008 had better be a quantum leap better than Vista or IMHO all the deals in the world won't help.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[pembo13]

Still, LAMP is free, so unless they're going to start giving away Server 2008, they can keep it.

I have to take issue with this statement.

Let us assume a LAMP stack which comes via a support subscription (eg. RHEL). And lets assume variables such as customer support and pricing are equal, I would still go with the LAMP stack. I have experience with both, and I find LAMP to be easier to use yet much more versatile. A Microsoft web stack can definitely get the job done... but I find things easier to accomplish with LAMP -- I definitely don't work with Microsoft stacks without getting paid for it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

1 hour? that is a good 45 minutes longer than it takes us to deploy a full rack of windows servers, thanks for the enlightenment, I didn't realise linux was still so far behind.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Necrobruiser]

With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU and NIMDA in Linux.

Yes. And Windows ME sucked as well. A lot of the products that Microsoft was making in the late '90s and early 2000s were pretty bad. It's been over six years for NIMDA, and almost eight for ILOVEYOU. Let it go. If you're going to complain, complain about the latest version.
The other reason (secondary to the primary goal of pissing off slashdotters by making a profit) that Microsoft creates these new versions of Windows is to fix any security issues. NIMDA and ILOVEYOU have been fixed for years.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[digitalchinky]

Yes, but not for the school, and that's what matters!

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[rolfc]

We use MySQL for a lot of applications, and find it very acceptable. It is stable, fast and the administration is easy. We have not lost any data since we started to use it in 1997.

We don't want windows, so we use Linux. We don't find Windows an acceptable platform for servers, other than file-servers and for administration of Windows clients.

We are the customers.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[foniksonik]

Not if you're using it with a Active Directory system with automatic login to an intranet ala Sharepoint...

I agree with your logic but MS doesn't do logic... they do licenses and IP... so all of their technology is set up on the premise that they need you to buy lots of licenses to do 'anything'...

though when you do cough up enough money, their integrated suites of software are pretty useful, as long as you need to do exactly what the software is capable of and nothing else.

As soon as you need to do something else, you'll either have to hire an extremely over-priced development firm, a team of developers and all the overhead of a new department - or wait until MS decides that enough of your peers want to buy the thing you need for it to be profitable to them.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[rvw]

This is silly though. Web services only need one "user" -- the user that connect to the database on behalf of the server. That is not the way Microsoft defines a user. A Microsoft "user" is any person who uses the website. So if you have thousands of users, you have to pay for thousands of CALs, or take a server-license (one price no matter how many users).

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jimicus]

Three words for you: Client Access Licenses. Workstation editions of Windows haven't shipped with a free CAL in years.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[sumdumass]

I was wondering about this too. Most all of the windows domain instalations I see don't even have physical licenses, someone down the road just put the licenses in the server config and dropped it. I asked one guy I know who did this and he said Why pay for it if you don't have too, I then asked him why he paid for windows, he says he didn't the company did. Well, after seeing a logic loop starting I just shook my head and dropped it.

On another note, I was helping a kid who went through a vocational school for high school and was supposed to get his A+ certification by graduation. His final assignment was a cost and implementation plan for a company of 50 workers (broken into groups representing departments) and a need of 200 gigs of storage. He got an A on the assignment and never figured on backups, CALs, and assumed one windows 2003 domain controller would serve the entire company without hassle. He had his certifications but really didn't know much after two years of classes. Of course this was high school so I figured he goofed off quite a bit but the teacher grading the roll out plan should have caught some things. Out side of crimping cables and adding memory, I'm not sure he would be able to competently network his mom's computer. He ended up taking over an account I had because he was related to management (of the account). It wasn't long before I got the account back and he did trivial stuff and worked another job at the same time.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[zootm]

Still, though, the point remains. Unless the free alternative is just as easy to use for the task as the Windows one, the cost of Windows actually has to be really quite high before it starts to be cheaper to pay for the additional staff time to support the free solution. This is pretty much exactly how Microsoft can justify charging as much as they do. Of course, on top of this, there's the fact that many companies will choose paid support for the free solutions, which further mitigates the cost disparity.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the free solution can very often be the right one. But it's incredibly easy to forget just how much a person's time can cost relative to licensing fees.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[rolfc]

It isn't behind, and has never been. Using FAI "The nodes (106 servers) took about 10-12 minutes total when reinstalled on mass. Individually, a node takes about 4 minutes to go down and come back up fully reinstalled and FAI lists the install time as two minutes (the rest was rebooting). "

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[vhogemann]

Or...

You just can have a linux box with apache doing reverse proxy and caching in front of it, and ... Oh, nevermind. ;-)

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement is not clear when you say 'Let us assume a LAMP stack which comes via a support subscription (eg. RHEL). And lets assume variables such as customer support and pricing are equal, ...'.

Are you saying that you are comparing the LAMP stack with professional support (which costs) and the basic cost of the Microsoft product with limited but poor support? If yes then the LAMP stack with professional support would still be cheaper than Microsofts because to get the same sort of deal you would need to buy Microsofts server OS and also pay extra for the professional support.

There is no reason to take issue with the statement because if Microsoft did give away their server OS to compete with the LAMP stack then the LAMP stack would still win on the quality of paid support alone.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Plunky]

That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista.

If its the same codebase and the only difference is that with one 'version' you get licenced to tie your shoelaces with your left hand and with the other one you get licenced to allow your mother to tie your shoelaces or on the gripping hand you can get another licence that costs 20x more which allows anybody in your family to do the same, then I say that you've been conned if you buy any one of them because you didn't need a licence to tie shoelaces in the first place and whats more Chewbacca doesn't even wear shoes.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Ash-Fox]

Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea.

I can do it in 30 minutes easily. Most of my past jobs had the same pay for a Windows administrator doing the same thing on Windows.

(The Auditor's laptop takes an extra hour of your time to work with Samba? you need to spend a week to train your replacement when you leave?)

*Shrugs* I haven't needed to train anyone when I left places. They just got another administrator.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Alioth]

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski

And Windows Server 2008 Web Edition is only $400 if your time has no value.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[rvw]

You just can have a linux box with apache doing reverse proxy and caching in front of it, and ... This is exactly what is not allowed, like I said already. The "user" is not a computer, but strangely enough a human being. Where is the world going...? :-P

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention....

"also dollars at risk due to Liability to BSA audits and fines are also reduced." when you pitch a Samba server you need to give the 1-2 punch. It makes the pitch strong enough to keep the managers strong during the FUD that microsoft managers and advertisments throw at them. they start asking, "how much is your cost then? what is your liability?" The microsoft goons don't have answers for that.

BTW: the best Microsoft goons are other CTO's and It managers that refuse to change anything. They astroturf linux at every turn. At comcast we got a new CTO that screamed that linux must be removed everywhere and then had a ballmer fit when he was told that that is not possible as all the MPEG routing and compressing systems for the headends run on linux, his "plan" will cost the company at least several billion.

beware the idiot CTO.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[cheater512]

Wait. You get support with Microsoft products? :P

IIS still doesnt have a decent mod_rewrite equivalent or stuff like that.
Its a old style web server where it fetches the file you requested with dynamic support stuck on with duct tape.
Modern web servers can do that and so much more.

I agree. I'd have to be paid to use their products.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people use MS Access and excel for *many applications* and find it acceptable too.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[petermgreen]

The thing about free software is that it is nowhere near as vulnerable to market pressure as a traditional competitor. When the price of linux or firefox or openoffice is free the best MS can do is match it they can never undercut it and because the software is free to start with it is rather hard to cut off developments air supply through market pressure either.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's what they mean when they say "free as in beer" You must be one busy guy....

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[lonesome_coder]

If only I had mod points...

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Ucklak]

Still can't stream media without a license for each file.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing a basic webserver, on a linux box, after you've spent about an hour setting things up. That hour is a one off. It does need a server for storing all the setup files. The hour includes installation of that server.

Plug the server in. (network, kvm, etc)
Get the MAC address. Type it into the DHCP server, along with the hostname.
Set up the backup server to connect to the new server's ip.
Switch on the new server.
Hit F12 for a PXE boot.
Type Webserver
Leave it alone for 30 minutes.

Done :D

Time beginning to end, about 45 minutes.
Time actually spent working, about 10 minutes.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[joeytmann]

While its still not free, it is as close as MS can get....or cares to get.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[bignetbuy]

Some numbers you should include in that domain controller price -- cost of antivirus software, cost of security incidents and cleanup due to hackers, viruses, trojans, or some dumbass using the DC as a client and surfing www.horsegagpr0n.com, and finally, the cost of downtime due to broken MS patches that break or reset service/application configs.

(I'm not saying OSS doesn't push shady patches -- but because we can look inside our patches and see exactly wtf they do, the shady patches usually get caught in advance)

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Kjella]

I've heard about the "free as in beer" part, but I don't remember the nachos. Maybe they replaced something less important.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[pseudorand]

> God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER That's actually not the case. The fortran standard states that any variable starting with one of the letters in INTEGER are integers unless explicitly declared as reals. Of course, programming without 'implicit none' is like visiting a Vegas whore house without a condom...

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[muhan]

A link in the original post shows that they are in fact taking market share from LAMP.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[JohnBailey]

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski And Windows costs more than the price of the license.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

Most of my work has been on relative small roll-outs, say five to fifteen computers plus a server. I really do find AD a bit of overkill in that sort of a situation. The only reason I have Server 2003 at my current job is because the absolute (they say) need for MS-Exchange and a rather horrible CRM product (Maximizer), which means I'm stuck.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[zootm]

Yeah, AD does seem a little excessive in those situations, but on the other hand it is the kind of all-in-one solution that open source doesn't appear to easily offer at present. The biggest problem with AD in this situation is that, as far as I'm aware, the price doesn't scale down that far.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[masdog]

Your post comes across as "Look at this stupid kid...he didn't even think about these things that I, with my experience, know to take into consideration." Give the poor kid a bit of a break. There are a lot of things that aren't taught in school and only come from experience and a good mentor.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[gral]

This is not the way MS has handled SQL Server in the past. There is a separate charge for "Unlimited" users if the people that connect to your server and use SQL Server are not part of your normal employees. Wonder if this little hidden charge is still part of the deal.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[LWATCDR]

MySQL is fine for a lot of applications. Early versions lacked a lot of features and the latest version still lags Postgres in features.
If it works for you then great.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[guruevi]

Have you used 10.4 and 10.5 server yet? I did both (just did an install of 10.5 server) and I would recommend it to anyone. It's built on top of BSD and uses Apache and MySQL. I know in the past they didn't really have a marketshare in the server world simply because a) they were not flexible enough b) they had proprietary solutions to common problems.

The current 10.5 Server has much improved over 10.4. As in 10.4 you still had to use some command line to do advanced stuff, now a lot of that is moved into the interface without making it difficult (it's in a separate tab). Apple though is in a different market segment than most of us geeks. Apple is if you want to simply set up a shop with 0-500 users without fussing too much about the details. If you're small enough, you don't even need a sysadmin, just somebody that knows enough to click it together. It's flexible now too (as compared to before 10.2 since it still allows you to go into command line if you really want/need to. The best of both worlds.

Of course for larger shops that needs lots of performance out of a single box or have multiple locations and directories that need integrated and have the sysadmins to do it, Linux still beats the crap out of Mac OS X. Mac OS X is more in line with what you can do with a Windows server for a medium to large office but without the expensive licensing or rack-full of hardware.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[sumdumass]

Under any other circumstances, I would agree with you. But he was going to school to learn this stuff. I'm assuming that you wouldn't be so forgiving if a cop graduated the police academy and didn't know the laws on state speed limits or checking ID of people walking down the street.

If this was a kid who all the sudden decided he wanted to learn about things like this, Sure, he wouldn't know until he got the experience. And even though kids goof off in school, especially high school, which could give him somewhat of a pass too, his teacher should have known better. His teacher should have marked the improper stuff and hopefully sent them in the direction of learning the stuff. This didn't happen and while the comment appears like it a "look at this stupid kid" it is more of a these kids aren't even being taught this elementary and basic stuff like CALs or backups.

My post follows a series of "it's only $500 for windows and that is chump change" when it should be it is only five hundred dollars plus one hundred and twenty five bucks for every five computers connecting to the server. The Parent I responded to correctly pointed out the CALs that were missing from the statement and I more or less elaborated on why this was a problem.

MS licensing is something that is taught in school, it was on the A+ certification test I took and part of the study guide. This isn't something you should only find out from experience or a mentor. It is a fundamental process of deployment and maintenance. You would probably be very upset if your company ended up getting fines seriously bad because some MSCA or A+ tech didn't understand the principles behind CALs. Or at least I would hope so.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

The big improvement, so far as I'm concerned, with the of AD is a somewhat more logical group policy scheme (NT's was a bit of a pain in the ass). If Samba could come up with GP support beyond loading a hive into a registry editor then I think it would be a ways along. There are finally some decent groupware solutions coming along, if I could convince everyone to toss out Outlook, then something like Citadel would be great. What's more, the horror story I'm going through right now trying to get two remote locations with iffy Internet connections to work with Exchange shared scheduling/calendaring would go away.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

And that's what is biting me in the ass right now. I'm desperate to get rid of the horrid pile of shit Small Business Server 2003 (which I inherited, and was the cheapest fastest way to get Exchange working). A pack of CALs for Server 2003, a pack of CALs for Exchange 2003 or 2007. The costs mount pretty damned quickly, and it's not as if Exchange is the easiest thing in the world to configure and maintain, and of course, it's evil gatekeeper, Outlook, is a constant source of woe for me (not to mention the admittedly one-time but still pricey Office licenses).

If only I could convince these guys to go with Citadel or some other open source groupware solution, I'd be a happier man. This addiction to Outlook is so puzzling to me, because it's such a bloated piece of garbage.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jonbryce]

Webserver 2008 is an additional version entirely separate to Ultimate, where it joins versions such as Small Business, Standard, Enterprise and Data Centre. Webserver is to 2008 what Home Basic is to Vista.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jonbryce]

you still only get 50 login accounts.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Curate]

I agree with what you're saying, that the differences between SKUs is far more than just the differences between kernels. However, your own comparison wasn't totally fair. Windows Server 2003 is clearly newer and better than Windows XP. They are built from different codebases. Windows XP 64-bit Edition would have been a more apt comparison. Remember that Windows XP = NT 5.1; Windows XP 64-bit Edition = Windows Server 2003 = NT 5.2 (yes, identical kernel binaries); Windows Vista = Windows Server 2008 = NT 6.0 (again, identical kernel binaries).

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jimicus]

"This addiction to Outlook" is regrettable, but not something I think is easy to eliminate.

If by bloated you mean "takes up lots of disk space", nobody outside of IT cares. Disk space is Not Their Problem.

If by bloated you mean "loaded with tons of features, 95% of which are never used" - well, that is something I do agree with you on.

However, as soon as your requirements include "Must have well integrated calendaring, email and address book features including shared calendars with ACLs (let's face it, that's all most people are using it for)", "Must have a halfway sane GUI that my users will actually use rather than moan about" and "Must work offline for the laptop users who are frequently travelling and don't have access to a reliable Internet connection", you've pretty much eliminated all purely web-based options and more or less every client except Outlook.

And once you know that, you realise that you either need Exchange or something which plugs into Outlook more or less seamlessly. I've looked into plugin-based options and they are never as good.

And of course Exchange requires Active Directory, so you might as well set up an AD domain. IIRC, Windows SUS also depends on an AD domain (essential if you want any control over what patches your desktops will install). I don't know if the registration system that Vista uses to avoid businesses having to register desktops directly with Microsoft requires an AD domain, but I would be very surprised if it did not.

Basically, Microsoft have gone to great lengths to ensure that once you start putting Windows in the server room, it's very hard to stop.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jimicus]

I've already replied, but I'm going to do so again.

If you're stuck with a Windows infrastructure, I think the only sane way to do CALs (without losing your mind) is to go down the annually-renewable license route. At least that way you don't need to worry too much about "do we have enough for this new starter we've got coming in on Monday?" every so often - you just tell them what your requirements are every year and if they've gone up, you pay more next year.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

My solution as far as webserver and Samba goes is that I have a little collection of configuration files. When I need to build a new file server, I install the OS, go to my library, pull out the conf files, change the few things that usually need to be modified and away I go. Because the configuration is in discreet configuration files, I find it a lot easier than wading through configuring a Windows server. I agree that producing that template set of configs is the hard work, but once you've got them, it's pretty damned easy.

There will always be things that are an incredible pain. But Windows doesn't cure that, and has its own special roadblocks. For one thing, being an olde-time *nix and DOS guy, I really hate GUIs for a lot of things.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

Well, the saddest thing about my current woes is that when it's done, I'll have a copy of SBS2003 with 15 CALs that are worthless to me. Because I'm trying to set up trusts for the local Server 2003 network, a remote Windows 2000 Server setup and a Samba 3 setup, I'll never use SBS again, so it will sit on the shelf and collect dust.

Oh well, at least it wasn't my budget that paid for it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[gnuman99]

OMG!!!! OMG!!!!!

You brought out the dreaded Domain Controller. How many hours have I spent on that darn thing that just did NOT work out of the box, at all! First, the DNS update problems, so installed MS DNS. No luck. Still error messages in Event Viewer about some DNS update issues, and Active Directory permissions - mind you, this is a *clean* install with no configuration, out of the box brokenness.

Anyway, last attempt was,

    1. Install w2k3 sp1 from scratch
    2. On first startup, it asks to configure server. Ok, set it up as domain controller with DNS server.
    3. It did it's magic (took about 1-2 hours to get it to this point)
    4. On reboot, started to get weird error messages that DNS was not running (though running on same Windows machine).
    5. Could not login to the DC machine with a user unless admin logged out - wtf? That is with so called "unlimited" licenses.

That's when I totally gave up on Windows as being capable of running any server. The mind numbing, unsearchable wrath of clicky-clacky configuration dialog boxes combined with meaningless error messages just proves my point.

Fortunately, this is was just a development MSDN subscription so no money lost.

Anyway, from my own experience, it is easier to debug spurious Linux kernel messages than trying to get Windows Server running and understand what is actually happening. Setting any service on something like Debian using nothing but command line is dead simple even for someone that is not a *nix "guru". And at least there is choice in stuff. You don't like LDAP? Run PostgreSQL/MySQL based authentication backend or even flat file if you'd like. With Windows? You are stuck with Active Directory that is easier to setup and running properly in Samba anyday.

PS. As a nice exercise, I dare you to turn off all udp/tcp/raw 0.0.0.0 listening ports except for 80 and only have the bare necessary services running using either named pipes or 127.0.0.1 interface. No go? Another point why Windows is difficult to manage.

Oh and finally, do not bring out the $/h crap. Your IT people work flat out 100% workloads? Really? Then either they don't know their jobs or you have one person for 1,000 people? Any IT personnel worth $100,000 a year would be able to set up Samba in their spare time as a side project within one week with all the bells and whistles. Better than writing comments on Slashdot. Which reminds me....

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

IIS still doesnt have a decent mod_rewrite equivalent or stuff like that. Not true, there are several, even one very stable open source option.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

On the system being discussed, thats not true.

The web-server edition of windows server doesnt require any CALS.

Thats its primary purpose for being.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

It's even more complex than that.

You only buy the CALs once, for all your servers.

So if you've got an MS installation, as long as this isnt your first server, and you've been doing it right, then you already own the CALs.

It's the MS way ... there is a cost, but once you're in the door, if you stay within their world, the marginal price for each additional piece is very small.

And combine it with how well all their stuff works together, it can make it very compelling for some shops.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

I can understand Exchange being painful if you're not up to speed and experienced with it. But in what way is Outlook a 'constant source of woe'?

It pretty much just works. Every once in a while when flipping between a bunch of different vpn connections on wifi, it'll get stuck, and I have to force it to reconnect, but thats about the only trouble I've ever seen.

Also, if you own Exchange, then you own Outlook. You dont have to buy anything additional. Thats why you get the Outlook CD with your Exchange packaging. You get one license to Outlook for every CAL you pay for on Exchange.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

You can buy upgrade packs that translate your SBS licenses to win2003 licenses & cals.

It's usually quite a bit cheaper than standalone win2003 licenses plus cals.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

Yes, I just remembered the Transition Pack after I posted it.

I'm waiting for an answer on whether this supports SBS2003, and not just SBS2003 RC2. Getting positive answers on the intricacies of Microsoft licensing is a real pain in the ass. That's another reason I hate Windows so damn much.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[sumdumass]

You only buy the CALs once, for all your servers.

I'm not exactly sue what you mean on this. You technically need CALs for each server. This depends on if your using a per server licensing model or a per device/user model. If it is a per device model, then you will need on for each server your connecting to simultaneously and both models require version specific CALs.

So if you've got an MS installation, as long as this isnt your first server, and you've been doing it right, then you already own the CALs.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure I understand this either. Your windows 2000 CALs aren't good for 2003 server and I haven't checked yet, but I don't think they are good for 2008 server either. so if you add a server, you have to add CALs for that server and if you replace a server with a new version of an MS server, you have to get new CALs too.

Of course both of those statements could be invalidated by some Software assurance or upgrade assurance program or something I haven't accounted for. I'm speaking of the plain licensing requirements, not special programs that get more friendly the larger the organization you are.

It's the MS way ... there is a cost, but once you're in the door, if you stay within their world, the marginal price for each additional piece is very small.

After NT4, I always attributed this to the cost of replacing software you already own. If I was to change an MS shop out, it would be extremely costly for the most part because of all the software that just/only works on MS platforms. But if I was adding to or starting from scratch, if there isn't a specific software requirement, I think the Linux/BSD route is cheaper.

One of the most compelling reasons I have seen to stay an MS shop is the competency of the techs and employees. The next might be how well the things work together. MS makes things so easy that most idiots could eventually do it. I consider myself a trained monkey for the most part. I know I am surrounded by enough of them that this statement couldn't be qualified. It seems if you know what the expected outcome should be and can point and click long enough, you will arrive at your destination. I'm not sure how many times something had been wrong to hear someone fixed it and they couldn't tell you what the problem was or why it was acting up or which specific click got it going again. I think I have even been guilty of this a couple of times. This is where you can tell the differences between a professional and a novice. A novice will say it works so it must be set up right. A professional will say everything is setup correctly so it must work.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[nobaloney]

If you're in the webhosting business (I am) you'll pay about the same per month for a RHEL license as you will for a Microsoft Windows Web Server edition 2008.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Allador]

You technically need CALs for each server. Not at all. You only need CALs for each type of server. For example, for most shops that will have an MS infrastructure, you just buy per-user or per-desktop core CALs, once. That covers you for an unlimited number of windows server, exchange, sharepoint, etc.

You still have a per-server cost to buy the exchange server, etc. But the CALs cover all servers in your organization, as long as you're working in per-seat mode.

I'm sure there are some situations where you'd want to do per-server licensing (as opposed to per-seat), but I've never seen it.

If it is a per device model, then you will need on for each server your connecting to simultaneously and both models require version specific CALs. Not at all. For example, if you have 100 users/desktops, and 10 windows 2003 servers, 2 exchange servers, and 5 sharepoint servers.

You only need 100 Core CALs. If you then double the amount of servers, as long as they're in this set of servers, then you dont have to buy any more CALs.

Nowadays, the Core CAL and Enterprise CAL suites are versionless, since unless you're in education, they all include SA.

http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/ProductPage.aspx?pid=109

Of course both of those statements could be invalidated by some Software assurance or upgrade assurance program or something I haven't accounted for. I'm speaking of the plain licensing requirements, not special programs that get more friendly the larger the organization you are. Okay, so in the small business scenario, where you're buying retail or off the open license, then I think you're partially right. The cal's are versioned. But you still only need one per-employee or per-desktop, no matter how many servers you have (assuming you're using per-device or per-user).

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jacksonj04]

But as yet another argument in the never ending cycle, Windows and AD stuff makes it much easier to roll out config changes without having to resort to doing it manually or rolling out scripts. Just tweak the group policy and make sure it affects the right scope (Users, systems, locations, the possibilities are nigh on endless if you're fancy enough with groupings).

Apache responds

[Stamen]

In response to today's Microsoft announcement the Apache Software Foundation announces that they will cut their price by 100% and increase the allowed number of users to googolplex + 1.

Re:Apache responds

[Junta]

increase the allowed number of users to googolplex + 1 That would constitute a decrease *and* be less than the Microsoft offering. You clearly meant infinity*2.

Seriously, to what extent was Netcraft's status gamed by microsoft ala that situation where Microsoft got their platform as the return for ungodly numbers of parked domains vs. how much of reflects an actual legitimate uptake of their platform in the face of Apache? I haven't seen any technical/logistic reason for them to be suddenly gaining ground (maybe this move would have some impact), so I was wondering if it is really happening and if so why.

Re:Apache responds

[Blakey Rat]

I haven't seen any technical/logistic reason for them to be suddenly gaining ground (maybe this move would have some impact), so I was wondering if it is really happening and if so why.

I guess it couldn't possibly be because IIS6 is freakin' fast and memory-efficient? It also couldn't have anything to do with the great .net application stack that corporations are adopting in droves. Or that Windows Server 2003 sets up balanced clustering with failover with very little brain activity needed on part of the administrator? (Oh wait, this is Slashdot... I forgot making things user-friendly is evil.)

Seriously. IIS is gaining ground because it's a pretty damned good product. That's all there is to it, no trickery involved.

Re:Apache responds

[Stamen]

You almost had me there. We done sir, well done... classic sarcasm at its best.

Re:Apache responds

[netik]

I have to wonder if it's because of increased security efforts by people using Apache to turn off ServerTokens so that the system no longer advertises what version of software is running in production?

Most of the servers that we run in production do not announce they run apache, but I don't know of any way of turning this off in IIS.

It's not like 2005 came around and suddenly people stopped using Apache. There must be an explanation for the massive decline in Netcraft's charts

Netcraft?

[calebt3]

Is this the same Netcraft that said BSDs were dying?

Re:Netcraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavor you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimize doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving FreeBSD. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones (e.g. BSD) in software development.

BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL. To that Linux owes much of its success.

Re:Netcraft?

[multisync]

So I'm leaving FreeBSD.

Thank you for telling us without using profanity, or threatening to beat anybody up ;^)

The downside...

[Junta]

Since 2008 will be based on the Vista core, you'll need a dedicated person to sit at the console to address the "Someone is trying to access your website, cancel or alaw?" dialogs.

Re:The downside...

[RuBLed]

yes, but now you could have more than 50 dedicated persons answering Allow or Cancel...

Re:The downside...

[explosivejared]

Didn't you read the article! The primary focus is not "to increase market share" against MySQL and Apache as the Netcraft fud would have you believe. The real reason is this is a surreptitious physical-user based fix to sending out too many cancel allow dialogs. Microsoft completely misjudged the boxes functionality and popularity, which resulted in masses of dialog boxes being excessively consumed. Microsoft was getting so many bug reports about exhausted screen space from all the boxes that they had to something. This is just another case of MS providing relief to customers who are unable to responsibly control their MS lust, in this case for cancel allow dialogs.

I swear it was in the article. Why are you all looking at me? What?!

Google

[pweitz]

Netcraft reports that Google has 7.39% of all active web servers in their survey. Does that really mean that 7.39% of all web servers on the web are run by Google? Thats as interesting to me as the Apache vs. MS numbers.

I wonder what percent of the netcraft's MS number is MS machines.

Re:Google

[micheas]

If you read netcrafts definition of a website you will find some sort of strange things. almost all the google sites are blogger sites, over half the IIS sites are myspace profiles and live.com blogs.

The recent decline in IIS and gain by apache is almost entirely myspace to facebook migration.

The other big factors are godaddy parking is IIS, most other parking domains are apache, and then there is the relatively small number of sites which are all the sites that generate all the content that you would actually want to connect to the internet for.

Netcraft is has a bit of a problem with figuring out what is a website. Is a myspace profile a website? No, but what if someone is running a music site off of their myspace profile and have it branded and put real effort into and is its own destination?

Do geocities accounts count as websites? most of them did get counted and when geocities popularity waned so did BSDs market share.

What if you wild card a domain name and have a script generate unique content for almost every possible hostname, and submitted tens of thousands of the hostnames of that server to netcraft? How many websites would that be? Some creative spamming by Microsoft or their enemies would make netcraft statistics pretty meaningless. Also Netcraft only reports on the front facing server which grossly understates zope and tomcats presence.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts.

Re:Google

[calebt3]

The recent decline in IIS and gain by Apache is almost entirely myspace to facebook migration ?????
That second graph shows no decline in IIS, and no rise in Apache (at least in the end of the year).

Re:Google

[asuffield]

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts.

And that's before we consider factors like "what do these numbers mean anyway?".

Consider this: for a given large number of websites, running on a hosting provider, then the total number of Windows servers required to host those sites is considerably larger than the total number of Linux-based servers required to host those same sites (all running on identical hardware), because Linux is simply more hardware-efficient. So we would naturally expect the number of Linux-based servers to be lower, all else being equal.

So what is it that you really want to count anyway? I don't see a good answer.

Re:Google

[ScrewMaster]

Does that really mean that 7.39% of all web servers on the web are run by Google?

No, just 7.39% of the servers that anyone cares about.

Re:Google

[tonyr60]

You might want to check out the latest Netcraft survey results, not the old one referenced in the intro...

Re:Google

[ChronosWS]

This is Slashdot. The bar for Windows success is vastly higher than the bar for Linux success, whether it deserves to be or not. Don't like the statistics? Change the definition of the statistics so that they are painted in the light you prefer. After all, that's what Microsoft would do, right?

You seem to dislike their definition of a website. But what the survey is really telling you is which web server is being used to serve unique content on the web. Whether one server serves a million pages or a million servers serve one page apiece is irrelevant. What matters, for the purposes of the survey, is which server is doing the serving. That is a perfectly valid metric, just like unique web servers is a perfectly valid metric. However they are not the same.

So there are lies, damn lies, statistics and then people who don't know how to use the information in front of them, or worse, know how to use it but purposely use it incorrectly.

For reference, here is the Netcraft methodology.

Re:Google

[jimicus]

But what the survey is really telling you is which web server is being used to serve unique content on the web. Whether one server serves a million pages or a million servers serve one page apiece is irrelevant.

Technically correct, but I think it could benefit from further clarification.

Netcraft's numbers tell you which piece of software is being used to provide web service on a unique hostname.

But with modules like Dynamic Mass Virtual Hosting (and whatever the equivalent is on IIS), it is trivially easy for a web company to have as many websites as they like without buying another license for the web server software, without buying another physical piece of hardware and without configuring anything beyond an entry in DNS.

It doesn't tell you a damn thing about "how many companies have gone out and bought the Microsoft solution vs. used a LAMP stack". Systems like blogger and myspace (which present each user to the world with their own unique hostname, but obviously don't install a new server every time a user signs up) can easily distort the numbers.

The point I'm making is you're quite right, it's pointless to discuss these statistics without understanding what they really represent. But in understanding what they represent, it becomes clear that they don't actually represent anything at all.

Re:Google

[micheas]

For reference, here is the Netcraft methodology.

That methodology is from July 2000. If you have been following the survey for the last several years you would know that a large percentage of the sites currently counted are on blogger.com, livejournal.com myspace.com and facebook.com. They have been collecting comments and tweaking there survey for over seven years since that methodology was posted.

What I would find much more interesting is a sharepoint, drupal, joomla, plone, handcoded html, frontpage, oracle websphere, opencms, wordpress, etc. survey of websites.

Eight different versions of Windows Server

[Animats]

There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008:, depending on what features are crippled:

1. Windows Server 2008 Standard, $999 (with five Client Access Licenses, or CALs);
2. Standard without Hyper-V, $971 (with five CALs);
3. Enterprise, $3,999 (with 25 CALs);
4. Enterprise without Hyper-V, $3,971 (with 25 CALs);
5. Datacenter, $2,999 (per processor);
6. Datacenter without Hyper-V, $2,971 (per processor);
7. Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems, $2,999 (per processor); and
8. Windows Web Server 2008, $469.

This change only affects the crippling level on #8.

Re: Eight different versions of Windows Server

[Black Parrot]

There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008:, depending on what features are crippled: This from the company who used to posture as a refuge from the confusion of all the different Linux distros.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[totally bogus dude]

Seems strange they'd actually bother to sell separate "Hyper-V" and "non Hyper-V" products, given how little they intend to charge for it and that they intend to sell it separately anyway.

Microsoft, however, also plans to sell Hyper-V directly to corporate users who could wipe a server clean and install Hyper-V Server, which is priced at $28 and allows an unlimited number of virtual machines on a single box.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111207-microsoft-virtualization-server.html

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[1310nm]

Figuring out an implementation based on Windows is friggin INSANE. 1) Figure out which of the (now 8?) different versions fit your needs. 2) Feed money into a random number generating claw machine, grab some licenses. There's no telling which ones will "keep you legal" while giving you the fabled "Genuine Advantage". 3) Install and try to figure out the reasoning behind such strange and oftentimes obscure configuration methods. Curse Microsoft for not really understanding what you really need, and then find out there's a new version of the software you're using with the functionality you need - it's just a $1k+ license away. 4) Find out that not only is the legality of your deployment in question, but the stability as well. 5) Unleash people on the server, ignoring the "At least one service failed to start" pop-up at the CTRL-ALT-DEL screen. Ahh...that was refreshing.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[Allador]

Everything I've seen ... they felt they were forced to do that for anti-competitive purposes.

They wanted to make it free, but feared to run afoul of the monopoly issues, by undercutting/bundling the product that competes with vmware, etc.

This way, its nearly free, but not really free.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[UnknowingFool]

Only 8? At least they have been consistent with server OS versions.

Windows XP: 2 versions
Windows 2003 Server: 8 versions
Windows Vista: 6 versions
Windows 2008 Server: 8 versions

If the pattern holds up, it will be like this:
Windows 7: 18 versions

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[mallardtheduck]

Actually, there are 4 (consumer) editions of XP: Home, Pro, MCE, Tablet.
That means there will be either 8 or 9 editions of Windows 7, depending on weather it is a geometric or arithmetic progression.

If we attempt to count Windows 2000 (1 desktop, 3 server editions, according to Wikipedia), then we get 1, 4, 6 for desktop versions and a resulting polynomial formula of 0.5(x^2)+4.5x-3 (where x is 1 for 2000, 2 for XP and 3 for Vista) meaning Windows 7 will have (if we take x as 4) 23 editions.
If we instead use x=version no. (5 for 2000, 5.1 for XP and 6 for Vista) then we get the formula -27.778(x^2)+310.56x-857.33 then Windows 7 would have -44.532 editions.

For servers, 1, 2, 3 numbering gives a formula of -2.5(x^2)+12.5x-7 with Sever 7 having 3 editions. With version numbering (and assuming that Server 2008 releases with a 6.0 version number), we get -25(x^2)+280x-772 and Server 7 having -37 editions (assuming it has 7.0 version number).

However, it is best to disregard formulas with negative x^2 coefficients, since they will all eventually result in negative values, therefore 23 versions of Windows 7 seems the most reasonable answer here, unless we take negative edition counts as complete Microsoft failure (CMF).

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[RobBebop]

Windows XP: 2 versions
Windows 2003 Server: 8 versions
Windows Vista: 6 versions
Windows 2008 Server: 8 versions

If the pattern holds up, it will be like this:
Windows 7: 18 versions

Windows 7?!?!?! You must mean Windows Intergalactic! (TM) With version IDs (1) Andromeda, (2) Optimus Prime, (3) Galileo, (4) Newtonian, (5) Uranus, (6) Zod, (7) Zed, (8) Zoom, (9) Black Hole, and (10) Sagittarius.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[Insightfill]

If we instead use x=version no. (5 for 2000, 5.1 for XP and 6 for Vista) then we get the formula -27.778(x^2)+310.56x-857.33 then Windows 7 would have -44.532 editions.

OK, you're my hero, I'll admit it. But seriously, what software did you use to turn the datapoints into polynomials?

Suspicious.

[calebt3]

What is with the sudden jump around May 2008? Conspiracy theorists commence:
...
...
OK, I suck at conspiracy theories. Maybe that's when most IT departments got their new budgets?

Re: Suspicious.

[Black Parrot]

What is with the sudden jump around May 2008? Conspiracy theorists commence: My theory is that a time traveller is involved.

Re:Suspicious.

[wuputah]

Most large changes relate to registrars (e.g. GoDaddy) changing their infrastructure on servers serving pages for parked domains (as parked domains make up a rather alarming percentage of domain names).

For most of those hosting, the cost is negligable

[WebCowboy]

The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400. However, the bulk of small-time outfits with an on-line presence (most of the the 90%) use a hosting service. They buy some frontpage-template-cookie-cutter "e-commerce kit" and run with it. They do not control or administer the server and most probably don't even care that they might be hosting their site on a Microsoft system, or Linux or BSD for that matter.

There was notable uptake in MSFT market share with the original release of Web Edition--just after the last time MSFT flirted with 1/3 market share they started losing it rapidly again, and its release temporarily kept them in the 30% range before it dropped back down to the low 20s for a long time. Win2k3 Web Server was found to be well suited to "parking pages" and "basic hosting services" for big-time web hosting companies--for those sites that are static and have little to no e-commerce and content-management requirements.

MSFT ran into a wall however because Web Edition has a lot of sometimes-severe limitations. Notably there are restrictions on number of database users and other back-end and connectivity issues that required CALs or other VERY EXPENSIVE ($5000 and up) licensing. For example, you are limited to workgroup security only, with only 10 SMB connections (something like XP Home Edition's capabilities in terms of Windows networking) so if Windows Networking is used to maintain the files on a host of a large number of little sites you can hit a snag there. Web Edition also is not permitted to work with SharePoint services, or use Rights Management services either. So, it looks attractive to start with, but when you want to do anything more useful than host a bunch of "electronic brochures" or domain parking then MSFT wants to rape your wallet.

As for your query, despite the common codebase with Vista, the Server product line is not likely to bear any resemblance to the Vista product line. the Server OSes maintain the "model year" designation they've had since 2000. There will be no "basic/premium/business/ultimate"; it will merely evolve from the product line since 2000: standard/enterprise/datacentre/SBS/Web, with "File server" and "Medium business" targeted editions thrown in as new choices. The "File Server" edition will be a purpose-built, reduced-cost version targeted at Linux/BSD with Samba installs no doubt. Just as always, I expect the web server will be available on the same editions as in 2003, but will only be "unlimited" if you buy the cheap web edition or spend thousands on "external connector licenses" or CALs.

Mmm...

[Pasajero]

Doeas that means if I put my windows server behind a firewall or a load share setup thus not "directly" facing the net, I'm not allowed to have > 50 users?

I think I'm staying with LAMP for a bit more...

Re:Mmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't. Stop being silly.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[filbranden]

Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400

Last time I checked, Slashdot was still using Linux.

So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[jacquesm]

or as another example, try Google
I'd love to see someone do something on the scale of google and *NOT* use Linux.

Where have I seen this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another company has a better product now. MS announces that it has plans for something better than that just a bit in the future. Oh and btw they have made recent advances in that field so you'll investors should just wait for MS.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[willyhill]

Um, sure. Lots of large Solaris-powered web sites out there. Most of the big Java app sites still run Solaris. Not to mention BSD.

Linux is not the only Unix.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[jacquesm]

tens or even hundreds of thousands of servers acting for a single common project or commercial entity ?

Point seems have been missed here

[WebCowboy]

So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D

---->point

    (you)
----------

Actually, yes it was both when it started. Slashdot started as "Chips and Dips", Malda's personal website in 1997. Soon after he and a few buddies started writing a bit of Perl code to allow for discussion and moderation around the articles they posted. It was, in that brief early time exactly that: a small-time hobbyist outfit.

Of course now it is the mother of all sites and corporately owned. And in fact, Sourceforge Incorporated probably does indeed consider $400 to be chump change. The savings in licensing costs very long ago ceased to be relevant in the choice to use Linux and Apache for Slashdot. Consider these observations:

1) Slashdot STARTED as a "small time hobby outfit" which made the initial choice of Linux, Apache and Perl the only real choice when cost WAS a factor. Linux or FreeBSD were the only vialble and affordable OS options as well, at a time when expensive Solaris was closed-server-OS king.

2) Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting on a couple of boxes whereas Windows NT would have to reboot daily and would require a full height rack packed with server gear to do the same.

3) if it aint broke don't fix it--there is a lot of time and effort put into the perl code and MySQL database that is used in slashcode. When they needed to handle the load they deployed it over mod_perl. To move to Windows would require a lot of work to completely rewrite the app, or else tons of frustration dealing with putting Apache and nod_perl onto Windows.

4) Politics. Slashdot is news for NERDS. Windows is pointy-haired-boss/MCSE-dweeb stuff. Linux and BSD and Apache and other Free software is "elite". Slashdot is also all about Free software as The Right Thing to Do. WHy would an advocate of open source put any effort into deploying its premiere site using closed tools, even if it were cheaper or had technical advantages? It'd be like Microsoft migrating servers to Linux.

Re:Point seems have been missed here

[ScrewMaster]

The point got missed because you were making what (on the surface) appeared to be a pro-Microsoft post. I doubt they read much further than that.

Re:Point seems have been missed here

[PatrickThomson]

Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting...

So what you're saying is that slashdot was designed to withstand a slashdotting? Now that's forward thinking!

Re:Point seems have been missed here

[markgohara]

So what you're saying is that slashdot was designed to withstand a slashdotting? Now that's forward thinking! Actually that would be recursive.

SKU?

[tkiesel]

Many, many people seem to like misusing the term SKU. At least, I think they're misusing the term. After all, I wouldn't tell my wife "Wow, these new Doritos bar codes are mighty tasty! Pass me a bar code of that lemonade."

So what gives?

My theory is that the people talking this way about SKUs are not misusing the term at all. There are just a lot of people out there geeky enough to be inventory management nominalists. It truly is a thing of beauty to behold.

Re:SKU?

[Osty]

Many, many people seem to like misusing the term SKU. At least, I think they're misusing the term. After all, I wouldn't tell my wife "Wow, these new Doritos bar codes are mighty tasty! Pass me a bar code of that lemonade."

For what it's worth, I agree with you. On the other hand, that's what Microsoft uses to refer to the various versions of a product (they seem to alternate between "SKU" and "Edition" with no rhyme or reason why one word is used over the other), so that's what I used to refer to them. I don't like it, but at least it's not as horribly misused as phrases like "begs the question" (at least "SKU" in this context could potentially be referring to a real Stock Keeping Unit).

Also, your examples aren't quite right. You're referring to instances of a bag of chips or a glass of lemonade, while the Windows Server SKU references are to types of items that can be sold. A better example might be, "I prefer the yellow lemonade SKU over the pink lemonade." Still just as silly, but at least now it's correct :).

Re:SKU?

[tkiesel]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. On the other hand, that's what Microsoft uses to refer to the various versions of a product (they seem to alternate between "SKU" and "Edition" with no rhyme or reason why one word is used over the other), so that's what I used to refer to them. I don't like it, but at least it's not as horribly misused as phrases like "begs the question" (at least "SKU" in this context could potentially be referring to a real Stock Keeping Unit).

See, Microsoft is a nominalist then. It makes perfect sense. ;)

I agree with you totally about our grievous misuse of the phrase "begging the question."

Also, your examples aren't quite right. You're referring to instances of a bag of chips or a glass of lemonade, while the Windows Server SKU references are to types of items that can be sold.

You'll have to work hard to convince me that a bag of chips or a glass of lemonade are not instances of types of items that can be sold. Then you'll need to tell me how the sellability (it's not a word, I know) of the item/SKU/barcode in question changes the validity of my perfectly absurd example.

Either way, we're wayyyy off topic though. SO maybe we're supposed to quite while we're ahead.

Microsoft's act of desperation.

[listen_to_blogs]

I ddoubt if this is really going to get them significant market share in the server market. They have to come up with something utterly compelling or partner with the likes of yahoo to use their platform. listen_to_slashdot

Why Netcraft?

[bogaboga]

The previous limit was 50 users. Microsoft's partners expect the changes to go a long way toward making Windows Web Server 2008 more competitive with the LAMP stack, against which Microsoft has been making headway in recent months. Emphasis mine.

Why do they continue to quote Netcraft when http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200712/index.html has always put Apache ahead of windows? Is it that Netcraft is more of an authority than Security Space.

Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache.

Re:Why Netcraft?

[Idiot with a gun]

Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache. True, but this really messes with their claim of being the "Continuing industry leader."

Re:Why Netcraft?

[weicco]

Not a really reliable source if they put Apache ahead of windows. Apache ahead of IIS wouldn't be so much apples and oranges ;)

Re:Why Netcraft?

[N3TW4LK3R]

Worse still, the Netcraft link is actually to an old version (from August 2007) of their Web Server Survey which projects a steep line downwards for Apache and a very steep climb for IIS.

If the submitter had linked to the most recent version of the survey, it would be clear that some of the territory that apache lost has already been reclaimed in the last few months and that IIS' market share appears to be stagnating.

Comparing the two graphs, I think it makes a huge difference. Why would the submitter post an old version that paints a dim view for the future of Apache? Sounds like FUD to me...

Re:Why Netcraft?

[sharkey]

What does Security Space say about the imminent death of *BSD?

Them, them, eff them

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Screw Microsoft. If I were to start up my very own server farm, I'd use LAMP.

hmmmm

[ILuvRamen]

But Redhat is free and has basically no restrictions on anything and isn't some greed centered craphole OS. Ooooh burn, what are they gonna do now?

Re:hmmmm

[freedom_india]

Redhat is free??? Since When?
Fedora is Free. Redhat is sold by RedHat.

Re:so what

[ScrewMaster]

It says "post", Mr. Dyslexic.

That's Mr. Lysdexic to you, buddy.

How nice of them, so thoughtful...

[flyingfsck]

one could almost imagine that they are thinking about what their customers really want. Some people may actually want a useful web server with a MySQL, Oracle or BerkeleyDB database instead of MS Jet. This is so nice, I can almost recommend them to my clients.

Re:How nice of them, so thoughtful...

[Jaime2]

So, what is wrong with the free-as-in-beer SQL 2005 Express Edition? It has all of the core features of SQL 2005. Nobody doing MS stuff has recommended Jet for almost ten years now. Even Access broke it's strong ties to Jet in 2000. For small systems, SQL Express is far better than MySQL and equal to Oracle.

Excuse me?

[msimm]

I'm guessing you haven't used IIS6 in production. It's neither.

Re:Excuse me?

[jerw134]

I run many IIS6 servers, in both production and development environments. It is definitely fast and memory efficient. I think you missed the memo to get off the IIS bashing train when 6 came out. It's actually a damn good web server, and more secure than Apache 2 to boot!

Re:Excuse me?

[segedunum]

It's actually a damn good web server, and more secure than Apache 2 to boot!

Based on what? Any presumed credibility takes a steep nosedive when you see comments like that.

Funny thing about that kind of logic...

[msimm]

The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400.

It sounds believable until your company decides to scale. Licensing like this can limit growth, especially at the earlier stages when it really counts.

Microsoft and the Command Line ...

[ScrewMaster]

One aspect to modern computing that was largely unforeseen by Microsoft is the server farm. Well, Microsoft was completely blindsided by the Internet in general, but a command-line OS was something that Microsoft had, threw away, and then denied ever existed.

Suppose Gates had had a little more vision, realized that the CLI still had a place in the world, and thrown a billion or two into DOS development? Suppose Microsoft had turned DOS into a real contender for the server room, maybe tacking a CLI and some utilities on top of the NT Kernel? They could have called it MS-DOS/NT. Sure, it wouldn't be DOS as we all knew and loved it (hah) but then they wouldn't have been caught flat-footed when people started assembling hundreds and thousands of computers into racks and connecting them to the Internet.

Re:Microsoft and the Command Line ...

[pembo13]

All Americans suck because they hate my freedom.

When can I expect my +5 Insightful?

Re:Microsoft and the Command Line ...

[LWATCDR]

They didn't need to keep Dos alive of stick in top of an NT kernel.
They had Xenix but sold it to SCO. Actually a lot of DOS development was done on Xenix machines.
OF course they could have just made a command line version of NT as well.

Re:Microsoft and the Command Line ...

[ZenDragon]

The windows server 2008 core installation doesn't even include the binarys for the GUI all you get is the command line. Exchange and several other staple products have gone the same route. You can install the GUI on top of it if you so choose. See here http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx

Re:Microsoft and the Command Line ...

[ScrewMaster]

Yes indeed, but I was talking about Microsoft's attitude a decade ago, before they realized that not everyone in the world needed or wanted, or could even use, the Windows GUI. They lost huge amounts of server market share because of that failure.

Re:so what

[flyingfsck]

No, as a mebmer of the ASD (Ameracin Lysdexic Soceity) I haev to cerroct yuor garmmar: It si 'an opst', not 'a opst'.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Anonymous Coward]

Another minicity infraction. This must be reported. Please forward all minicity complaints to:

Jacques Mattheij
j@ww.com --NOTE-- I run a whitelist, add 'stjoes' to the body
My Mini City Infraction Dept
Kromme Spieringweg 457
Vijfhuizen
Noord Holland
2141 AH
NL (Netherlands)
Phone: +31.630366241

Windows would still suck even if free.

[MikeFM]

Besides, as someone that has administrated web servers of all sizes and platforms for many years, Windows sucks. It's harder to use after the first hour and stays harder to use, you have more issues, it costs more and has a lot more hidden fees (it's not just $400), and in general is just a pain in the ass. It especially is a pain if you want to go beyond static pages on a single web server.

Linux admins aren't expensive. I can pretty easily find someone that's reasonably experienced and willing to work for less than $15/hr. My experience is that Linux admins are more experienced than Windows admins at the same price and usually know Windows in addition to Linux while Windows admins don't know Linux.

Re:Windows would still suck even if free.

[lukas84]

I'll agree with you that there are a lot of overpaid windows administrators out there that don't know anything.

The same is usually true for Linux admins working on Windows - many of them are blinded by their religious hate when trying to solve a problem, that often has an obvious and easy solution.

Good Windows admins are harder to come by, mostly because most of the bad ones are in it for the money - you don't see many Linux admins that are in it for the money, most like to do their job out of zealotry (which has the disadvantages outlined above).

Re:Windows would still suck even if free.

[MikeFM]

I dunno - what reasons are there to use Windows instead of Linux? It isn't cheaper, it doesn't use less resources, it isn't more secure, and usually it isn't easier (for someone equally familiar with both systems).

In my experience the only thing Windows really does better than Linux is run proprietary software that only runs on Windows. We just replaced our last major Windows hold out with an AIX box (the only other platform our ERP software runs on besides Windows) and it has been a major improvement. Much faster, easier to manage, and less buggy.

I do sort of like to use Windows for DNS and DHCP though as for a simple setup they work pretty well and are easy to use. We're not doing anything very fancy with them and they've been running on the same old Windows box since before I took over so they're still there. I'll probably leave them until I need some feature that isn't easy to do on Windows. I don't like our mail server, that runs on Windows, but I can't honestly say I've found a mail server for Linux I like either.

I try not to be a zealot but I can't really find much nice to say about Windows. I'd suggest Linux for servers and power users and Mac OS for normal users. Windows is only really the best when you need to run Windows only software.

Re:Windows would still suck even if free.

[lukas84]

Well, i'm not a sales, i doubt i'd be able to persuade you that Windows is always the better choice, but for me a technician there are several reasons to run servers on Windows.

I've never seen small businesses that run Linux on their desktops, and most of them are currently not able to do so, usually because of third party software. So i'll assume that the clients already run Windows. Microsoft Office is usually also required, mostly to run huge-ass Excel spreadsheets for calculations provided by suppliers, customers, etc. These experiences come from my dayjob working with SMBs in Switzerland. Situation might be different in other countries.

* Active Directory

Price included in Windows Server license

Active Directory allows me to manage users of Windows machines centrally, including a lot of application settings, network configuration, etc. through group policy. For example, i can configure the Windows Firewall and it's exception centrally using a simple Group Policy, and apply it to my clients - it doesn't matter if i have 1 client, 100 clients or 100'000 clients.

Samba is a limited OSS Alternative here. Samba doesn't support group policies, only at the NT4 level.

* Exchange 2007

Priced seperately

Outlook/Exchange are in my opinion a very nice and finished groupware package. Full integration into Active Directory makes Exchange easy to manage, and offers single sign on without any additional work. Great web based access interface, and a great client software that customers are familiar with and already like to use.

There are several OSS alternatives, a few of them even offer MAPI compatibility. I've never worked with them, so i can't say if they're good or not.

* WSUS

Price included in Windows Server license

Windows Server Update Services are a nice way to manage and deploy Windows updates in smaller environments. This allows me to conserve bandwidth and make sure that only updates and applications are rolled out that i WANT to be rolled out.

No OSS alternative.

* Sharepoint Services

Price included in Windows Server license

Microsoft's Sharepoint Services are a scaled down, free offering of Office Sharepoint Server. They allow collaboration and document versioning with full Microsoft Office integration. Very nice in mid-sized environments.

O3Spaces is said to be kinda the same thing for OpenOffice. Never worked with it.

* File Sharing, DFS and DFS Replication

Price included in Windows Server license

File Sharing on Windows is in my opinion done much better than on Linux. This is an opinion, not a fact. With DFS i can build a single share tree, redirecting clients to whatever server i want. DFS can be domain hosted, making it fully redundant without need for clustering or similar solutions. DFS Replication allows me to replicate data in real time to and from branch offices without much hassle, and saves bandwidth using algorithms such as cross file RDC. Permission management on Windows can easily be delegated, and the powerful group structures in Active Directory allow to customize all permissions exactly to your organizations needs.

Samba allows basic Windows filesharing. Supports DFS, but not domain based DFS. Doesn't support DFS-R. Read only replication probably possible using rsync, but a full r/w multimaster replication does not exist.

* WDS

Price included in Windows Server license

WDS allows easy and automated deployment of Windows Client and Server systems. Again, full integration into Active Directory is already there. With Windows Vista, Windows deployment is finally there were Linux was 5 years ago. RIS (the WDS predecessor) sucked.

No OSS alternative.

* Central Antivirus policy management

Third party software. Priced seperately.

If you have Windows Clients, a central AV solution allows you to manage all clients from a single place. This is something i'd consider a necessity, but then again currently only Windows even needs AV.

No OSS alternative.

So, that's what came to my mind right now. But again, i'm not a sales.

Re:oh boy you're so funny

[secretwhistle]

"Trolling M'Dear" was Banjo Paterson's less successful follow-up to his informal Australian national anthem.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[rastoboy29]

Jesus or I could just use LAMP.  You made my head hurt with your explanation.  What a nightmare.  Why would anybody want that?

I call BS

[SerpentMage]

>Windows requires as much or more administration than Linux.

Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it. What Linux has over Windows is the ability to fit into the environment more easily. Yet to make that fit takes more time.

>Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.

Wrong Windows is easier updated. You don't know what you are getting, but it is easy to update. Linux again has the ability to tune and tweak the updates.

>If you have a problem with Windows, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold your hand and fix it for you quickly. Most times I needed technical support for a commercial product, I realised I would fix the problems myself quicker and better, if I could do it (if I had the source).

And with Linux you need it as well, unless you are a Linux expert. And in that case your salary is higher (or should be) than most Windows administrators. Thus your extra salary is the "technical support."

>If you have problems with bugs in Windows, you have to wait for Microsoft to fix it, if they decide to fix it.

With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself. Otherwise you are in the same boat as Microsoft. And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks. Thus you are costing the corporation more by fixing a problem.

>With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU and NIMDA in Linux.

No, it depends on your administration abilities. These days it is just as easy to bugger up a Windows system as a Linux system. And if we want to go back in history the first worm that literally brought down the entire Internet was a worm that exploited a --UNIX-- hole.

>With Windows you have to spend with server licenses, client licenses, extra CALs if your clients are not Windows. If that was not enough, you still have to pay for an antivirus. With LAMP you don't need any licenses. Not to mention that you have to manage all the licenses. And don't lose any media, it's not like you can easily download it from their site!

No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees.

I was an OSCON once and there was a guy talking about Open Source and comparisons. And he said you know this license argument is BS. Think of it as follows, in the West we have interest on mortgages. In Sharia you have "rent". If you add the payments together "interestingly" enough the two added together make it look like there is interest being charge. His point was that you can call it what you want, you still end up paying one way or another.

For if LINUX was truly cheaper in the overall then Windows would completely collapse. Yet it has not... Sure Linux on the server is making headway, but it is killing Microsoft.

I think Linux has its advantages on the server, but costs is not one of them.

Re:I call BS

[Ash-Fox]

For your point on Linux administrators costing more - That remains debatable as within the region I live, they cost the same as Windows administrators.

Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it. What Linux has over Windows is the ability to fit into the environment more easily. Yet to make that fit takes more time.

I can setup a standard LAMP setup (which is what most people want) in fifteen minutes from scratch (including installing the OS). To do a ASP.net, MS SQL, IIS setup with Windows from scratch, it takes me literally five hours on the same hardware.

Wrong Windows is easier updated. You don't know what you are getting, but it is easy to update. Linux again has the ability to tune and tweak the updates.

How is windows easier to update with compared to say a LAMP SuSE Linux setup or a LAMP Ubuntu-server setup?

I have had difficulties in the past because updates on Windows take ages to install and I needed to /move/ right there and then, which was making administration a lot harder.

With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself. Otherwise you are in the same boat as Microsoft. And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks. Thus you are costing the corporation more by fixing a problem.

On the other hand, you're saving the corporation costs since that means less downtime and less issues. Their salary costs for you likely don't increase whether you sit around doing basic administration or actually do real administration by fixing the issue.

No, it depends on your administration abilities. These days it is just as easy to bugger up a Windows system as a Linux system. And if we want to go back in history the first worm that literally brought down the entire Internet was a worm that exploited a --UNIX-- hole.

Which wasn't Linux I might add.

No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees.

No increased salary here, this point is moot.

I was an OSCON once and there was a guy talking about Open Source and comparisons. And he said you know this license argument is BS. Think of it as follows, in the West we have interest on mortgages. In Sharia you have "rent". If you add the payments together "interestingly" enough the two added together make it look like there is interest being charge. His point was that you can call it what you want, you still end up paying one way or another.

Fascinating, but I'm pretty sure my past Linux server installations have cost companies far less, from domain setups to webservers - the fact that Linux is capable of handling things faster/more than most Windows solutions (such as when it came to samba setups) means there was even a reduction in the requirement of servers. Not as expensive hardware, not as many servers, no software licenses, smaller electric bill.

Sorry, I don't agree.

For if LINUX was truly cheaper in the overall then Windows would completely collapse.

It wouldn't in the desktop market for the fact that many people rely on their proprietary technologies (outlook, Microsoft Office formats), shops don't sell Linux in the computer shops and go, "Well, sir. If you want Windows Vista home addon, it will cost you 50USD more.". People have used Windows in the past, and thus are more reluctant to try something else too.

Plus, there is a even larger issue, Microsoft software is free. What do I mean by free? Everybody has that someone who can get them a free copy of any Microsoft software they need *cough*illegally*cough*. If you give most people a choice, between Microsoft software for free and Linux software for free, they are going to choose the item that they have more experience with and they are sure they want. Of course, there are always the exceptions, I am just talking about the majority.

Re:I call BS

[johnnyb]

"Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it."

Only if they were required for basic function would that be considered "more administration". In fact, usually this means less administration because you can set up Linux in a way that suits your environment faster than Windows, which rarely-if-at-all will be able to do so. If you're willing to live with the Windows feature subset, then you definitely don't have any more administration to do. But in that case you are probably hemoraging money in the time your users have to work around the computer setup.

"Wrong Windows is easier updated."

What's hard about yum and the autoupdate services?

"And with Linux you need it as well, unless you are a Linux expert."

If the people handling internet-facing boxes are non-experts, then you are a likely candidate to be 0wned.

"And in that case your salary is higher (or should be) than most Windows administrators"

Not where I live. In fact, everywhere I've lived a Windows admin for a small company makes about 20% more than a Linux admin.

"With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself."

But it's not just you. It's you and a whole slew of interested parties. In addition, you don't have to wait for it to become MS's priority. If it is your priority, you can always hire someone to do it for you.

In most of your answers I'm sensing that you are forgetting that computers are supposed to serve a purpose - that's their whole reason for existing. Don't worry, most MS people I know think this way. They view computers as simply a cost of doing business, and therefore are worried only about the cheapest way to setup computers for everyone in the office. Most Linux people on the other hand are usually trying to accomplish something on computers. So yes, it is cheaper to have an idiot MS administrator baby-sit machines that are used by office workers to play solitaire or host their porn. But when you have actual business requirements that need to be fulfilled, with Linux you can just do it, while with Windows you have to go through the toll-booths hoping that the features you need won't be held for ransom at the end of the trail.

"And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks."

Here's the whole problem - in Windows, your business is just plain screwed. You don't seem to be calculating that into your cost calculations. How much does it cost for your business to be screwed?

"No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees."

I'm curious why a competent Linux admin should make more money than a competent Windows admin. Competent admins all earn their keep, while all incompetent ones should find other work.

Let me go through what my company did in one year with Linux on the server (this was in 2004):

This assumes an existing single company server of either Win or Linux.

Groupware:
Linux price: $0.00

Estimated MS price:
hardware: $2,000 (MS best practice is to use own server for this)
software: $5,104 (2000 server + exchange + CALs)

Development/Deployment for Web Apps (web+database):
Linux price:
hardware: $800.00 for server
software: $0.00
Estimated MS Price: $14,196 - $29,196 (MSDN + SQL Server + Win2k*2)
hardware: $1600.00 for servers

Domain management (authentication+resource administration):
Linux price: $0
Estimated MS Price:
hardware: $2,000
software: $1,500

Telephone PBX server:
Linux solution:
hardware: $1600 (including phones)
software: $0.00
Windows solution:
not available. Most proprietary solutions were about $10k

So, how many admins does it take to do all this? We

Re:I call BS

[lukas84]

Just FYI, Windows 2003 for Small Business Server was available in 2003, which would've reduced your cost figures immensively (around 1400US$ starting price (premium) including 5 clients, plus 700US$ for each additional 5 clients).

SBS Premium includes SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition, Exchange Server 2003, and runs on a single machine. SBS CALs are also valid for other Windows Server 2003 servers in your network, e.G. if you would've bought a Web Edition machine, you wouldn't need to purchase any CALs and run it either against a local SQL Server Express instance or against the Workgroup Edition on the SBS Server.

Back in 2004, Office Communication Server 2007 wasn't released, but right now it's a full blown voip solution from Microsoft (which works pretty well, and integrates nicely). It isn't expensive either, at around 1000US$ per Server, and around 20US$ per CAL.

I don't intend to change your mind, just wanted to show you that the stuff isn't as expensive as you're trying to make it. Also, if you're a development shop that sells application based on Microsoft Windows, you can apply to become an MS Partner, which costs around 1500 US$ per year, and gives you all the licenses you might want (for internal production use), plus an MSDN subscription.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention also that the Linux solution is still going to require exchange server. If you suggest not using exchange for groupware you are an idiot and deserve to be fired.

Re:I call BS

[lukas84]

Well, that's a bit of a harsh way to put it. Lotus Notes can be an alternative to Exchange in such scenarios, because it doesn't depend on Active Directory, or Windows in general.

Re:I call BS

[Joe U]

I can setup a standard LAMP setup (which is what most people want) in fifteen minutes from scratch (including installing the OS). To do a ASP.net, MS SQL, IIS setup with Windows from scratch, it takes me literally five hours on the same hardware.

First off, 15 minutes is a stretch, just to format the HDD/RAID and copy the files off the CD/DVD and would take at least 15 mins, I'll assume you're not counting that.

I can install Windows 200x server in my sleep as well, your point is that you know your OS and I know mine. I wrote the same type of scripts you wrote to do the same types of tasks you did. I have an install disc that can bring a server up in under an hour, with the OS, ASP.net, MSSQL and IIS.

You get what you pay for in Admins.

Re:I call BS

[johnnyb]

"if you're a development shop that sells application based on Microsoft Windows, you can apply to become an MS Partner, which costs around 1500 US$ per year, and gives you all the licenses you might want (for internal production use)"

Right. But remember that clients don't care where the costs come from. So every instance in which the client has to pay more money for running the apps in production actually comes out of what they would otherwise be paying us.

"Back in 2004, Office Communication Server 2007 wasn't released, but right now it's a full blown voip solution from Microsoft (which works pretty well, and integrates nicely). It isn't expensive either, at around 1000US$ per Server, and around 20US$ per CAL."

That's nice, but that would have doubled the cost of the end result, and I'm going to guess it probably cost even more for the hardware required to run on (we have asterisk running on our cheapest desktop machine, and it runs our offices great).

Also, the thing I also forgot to mention is managing licenses. First of all, isn't this knowledge you have about Microsoft's licensing schemes totally artificial? I mean, the reason you have to remember it at all is just to make Microsoft more profitable. It doesn't help you as a developer, it just (as most MS products do) adds more roadblocks. Not only do I have to understand the coding, I have to understand the internal licensing structure of Microsoft. Not only do I have to buy more licenses, I have to keep track of them! Companies not only have to allocate resources for development, but they have to allocate resources to make sure they are "compliant". The company I work for went through, before I joined, a compliance test in which they paid someone money to make sure that they had all the right licenses. Now, the cost isn't nearly as important as the time and mental brain-power wasted trying to keep track of all of that stuff.

That's the primary reason I use Linux -- there are literally no worries about that sort of thing. I can use my Ruby-on-Rails production stack on any OS there is -- Windows included (as I mentioned, I've had only bad experiences with the .NET development environment, and, just so you'll know MS isn't the only one on my hit list, even worse experiences with J2EE/JSF). I can wake up in the morning, decide to reformat two machines with the latest version of CentOS, install PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, run a domain server, and deploy all sorts of applications, without even thinking about who I need to pay, how much I owe them, and whether or not I'm breaking the law by doing so. I can have the solution deployed before I could even get started in the morass of Windows issues.

"just wanted to show you that the stuff isn't as expensive as you're trying to make it"

You are probably correct that the prices I listed are not the cheapest way to get at the stuff. But as I said that's yet another issue. Having to keep in mind all of the licensing requirements and which ways I can best license something is one less brain cell I can devote to actually solving a problem. But, as I also mentioned, the prices mentioned above are only the list prices, and the amount of support time involved in them makes the MS and even poorer choice.

In addition, if I remember correctly, becoming a Partner is quite a bit more than the $1500 charge you mention. You also have to get all of your staff certified in various MS products. How much do those certifications cost?

In addition, I can't even log into the MS Partner website with Firefox. Which would be a big hurdle. We do a lot of development on the Macs even if we deploy to other OS's (including Windows). Again, just another MS issue. I don't need to develop on a Linux box to deploy on Linux. I use Netbeans for development, and it is happy anywhere, and I can deploy anywhere. Again, with MS it is just another roadblock on the way to delivering a solution.

What's really sad is that I know a lot of Windows developers, and they are so familiar with the roadblocks they think it is part of the development process! Arghhhh!!!

Re:I call BS

[lukas84]

we have asterisk running on our cheapest desktop machine, and it runs our offices great

I prefer to use professional hardware to run production environments.

So every instance in which the client has to pay more money for running the apps in production actually comes out of what they would otherwise be paying us.

I'm not a developer though - my target is to make sure that the software we sell to our customers fulfills their in terms of administrative overhead, integration, etc. That's where Microsoft products in my opinion shine best.

Also, the thing I also forgot to mention is managing licenses. First of all, isn't this knowledge you have about Microsoft's licensing schemes totally artificial?

It is. And i absolutely hate dealing with licensing in any way or form, it just makes my job more complicated. Most of this stuff is handled by our Sales staff luckily, so i don't have to deal with everything. But still, i would prefer it if all Microsoft products where free and i wouldn't have to worry about licensing.

This is an advantage of open source, but for larger corporations especially with development going on, you'll still have a legal mess (that doesn't involve admins or developers, though).

aving to keep in mind all of the licensing requirements and which ways I can best license something is one less brain cell I can devote to actually solving a problem.

If you're a developer, you shouldn't have to think about licensing. Leave that to your architect, sales staff, or whoever deals with licensing in your company. But again, the licensing mess that Microsoft has still IS a problem.

You also have to get all of your staff certified in various MS products. How much do those certifications cost?

Yeah, 250US$ for two people, 125US$ per exam. No preparation, classes, or anything else necessary, if you have a halfway competent staff. The other way, which is more expensive but would also fulfill that need is to certify your application. You know, the "Works with Windows Vista" stickers, or whatever program you'd enroll in. This is an marketing advantage too.

Finally, i would like to say that Microsoft isn't perfect, but a lot of their products can provide you with a very nice infrastructure thats completely standardized and you can get off-the-shelf personnel to support it - supporting even a mid-scale Linux deployment often leads to A LOT of custom code, this isn't the case with Windows - this helps keeping costs down. Compatibility and inter operation is also a lot better in a Microsoft environment (Sharepoint, Office, Outlook, Communicator, etc. just all work nicely together, no extra work required). This is usually not the case in an OSS environment, leading to a lot of custom code, which again leads to higher cost.

Re:I call BS

[Ash-Fox]

First off, 15 minutes is a stretch, just to format the HDD/RAID and copy the files off the CD/DVD and would take at least 15 mins, I'll assume you're not counting that.

Actually I am. ubuntu-server allows me to choose a LAMP setup, and will set it all up out of the box (10 minutes). The only thing I need to do is add the needed user accounts, configure networking if I need to and install FTP/SSH or whatever is needed just for external access.

I can install Windows 200x server in my sleep as well, your point is that you know your OS and I know mine. I wrote the same type of scripts you wrote to do the same types of tasks you did.

Nope, I'm talking about from scratch, no scripts or anything. No network boot installations, no custom install CDs, no imaged DVDs and so on.

I have an install disc that can bring a server up in under an hour, with the OS, ASP.net, MSSQL and IIS.

I can beat you at that since I know how to build DVDs that contain windows images (win2k or win2k3 - doesn't matter) that I can install and setup fully within 30 minutes, with all the necessary programs. It will run the windows setup on first boot though (the same way some OEMs do windows preinstalls) and request for the Windows serial key. You would need to add the licenses manually for the other services such as MSSQL. Since windows setup resets the network configuration on the image, I would need to setup the network sharing correctly for folders.

That said, I can also use the same methods with Linux in less time, as there is no worrying about software keys, I don't have to worry about Linux taking out my predefined settings for ssh/samba/ftp, nor does a 'installer' need to run on first boot.

Re:I call BS

[Doctor-Optimal]

Lotus Notes can be an alternative to Exchange in such scenarios Mod parent funny. (I hope)

Re:I call BS

[lukas84]

I never worked with Notes, but i DO know that it does not depend on Windows or Active Directory, and as such is probably more suited for a Linux environment than Exchange.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[m50d]

No, it's just using Linux for reasons other than the sticker price - performance, TCO, etc. Learn to read.

Clearly....

[EXTomar]

Clearly this is possible if you buy another machine and by 50 CALs.

internet-facing and Microsoft Server?

[freedom_india]

Well, its a catch-22 situation.
If i use MS Server to face the internet, then i risk getting hacked almost on a daily basis from some script kiddie...
if i don't use it, i need to pay Microsoft huge licensing fees and since i can't afford to pay the extortion, i risk being reported to BSA...

On a totally-different topic, anyone using Microsoft server for their internet-facing tasks without adequate (PhD equipped) hardening, DOES deserve the hacking they get....

who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the whole OSS vs MS on desktops, because until linux (or any open source OS) gets a substantial share of the market end users get shafted with less desktop software and more hardware bugs
but when it comes to servers, aslong as MS never gets a large share (about 75% IMO) nobody cares
most apache users dont support apache, id the foundation wouldnt notice much if the market share halfed over night
windows servers are forced to play fair because they cant afford to loose any ground and because they get caught abusing they're monopoly again. The world (especially europe) is watching MS alot more than it used to. so its not free to abuse its power, as it used to be.

also as has been said before, market share for server is veryhard to gauge
counting by domains, doesnt mean anything! theres no way a parked domain = a google
perhaps counting by MBs serverd would be more fair! but is that even possbile
or maybe by hits! but even that is hard/impossible and can easily fall foul to abuse

DOS never worked well for multitasking

[cheros]

The problem is that DOS was never designed for multitasking, not to mention the rather crap memory management. That's why you needed interrupt driven software (some of which is still with us) and anything that was "multi" tasking needed TSR (Terminate & Stay Resident) code to work, making networking a *bastard* to get stable.

The closest DOS came to multitasking was with Desqview and DoubleDOS, both suffering from the "640k is enough for anyone" limits.

Your PC is doing a lot of stuff at the "same" time, networking, listening to I/O, placing screen output into video buffers and, in the case of Windows Vista, probably farming your personal data to give it to Microsoft & friends.

I came from the DOS world when I started using Unix (first SUNOS, then Linux and BSD) and -although a bit difficult at first- it was *miles* better than DOS from the command line, not just because multi-tasking actually worked (in Worries for Workgroups you had this fun event when Windows decided to flush its cache, freezing the system for a minute or so) but also because it was *truly* segregated multi-user. DOS and Windows based servers were not really multi-user from a 'concurrent user environment' point of view until well into Windows 2000 - before then it was merely file serving to multiple access control lists. Where I would agree is that conceptually, the absolute dependence on a functional GUI before the system can be managed is something that Windows should lose pretty pronto. It's always been one of the great features of Unix that a GUI is actually optional.

Oh, and I didn't have to hand code little glue programs to make the batch language actually useful (the "ask" command, for example, came very late into MSDOS).

I can't really see why anyone would bother bringing DOS back for CLI work - AFAIK you've got things like Powershell (aka Monad) and, if you want to go the whole hog, you can install Cygwin which gets you more familiar with the Unix way of doing things (gives you some exercise in interoperability as well :-).

In summary, I agree with the idea of a better CLI (to me, it's always proved faster than a GUI), but I think asking for a DOS-alike implementation is somewhat ill advised. If you're leaning towards a better command line I would urge you to grab a Linux live CD or Cygwin and learn about "bash". Or use Powershell/Monad, with the caveat that that is very new and thus not as tested.

Just my two cents :-).

Re:DOS never worked well for multitasking

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you needed interrupt driven software (some of which is still with us)

There are interrupt handlers in the kernel and there are threads in user space. I don't know any other way in which DOS-era interrupt-driven code is "still with us". There are certainly no 16-bit DOS IRQ handlers in the NT5 kernel.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[ignavus]

"Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400."

That is just the tip of the Microsoft corporate licensing nightmare. At my government agency employer, we only use Linux for all our web servers. Why? Because we are developers and we want to drop a web/database/file/email/proxy/printer/whatever server wherever it is needed without being bogged down in a sea of Microsoft red tape.

GPL means one simple licence: use it on any machine you want, whenever you want. Absolute flexibility. No counting CPUs, no counting seats, no worrying about whether you bought enough licences. And no over-purchasing just to make sure. The GPL means freedom from licence hell. It is just what us developers want: an OS and software stack that we can use wherever, whenever, however. It allows us to concentrate on technical issues.

Freedom matters.

You were going fine

[kingtonm]

Right upto the last line

"There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts."

If you can come up with tools which can provide value judgements on website content, let them know, or call google on +1 650-253-0000

Re:You were going fine

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say something is bad without being able to fix it. Netcraft's statistics is much more broken than your average statistics. Perhaps because what they are trying to do is impossible.

WRONG!

[trey_killer]

Even large ISPs have to scrape for every penny -- at least the ones that have operated for more than a few years in the black. Joe six pack also shops for dedicated servers mostly by price.

Sp every dollar counts and even the $200 price ISPs pay makes LAMP more attractive. There is steady demand for windows web servers. But the market notices the extra cost.

It's All About Control

[mrpacmanjel]

After reading the article and viewing the graphs(just look how many web servers are out there) it really 'hit home' how bad it would be if Microsoft dominated the 'server space'.

At present there are many different web servers in use today and it was something I took for granted. I am a heavy Internet user and when I am visiting web sites I never give a second thought about what server it is running on - everything *usually* works within my browser.

Do you know why?

These web servers follow *open standards* using standard protocols and published specifications.

Now imagine if Microsoft dominated the web server market. They will have a commanding share of the OS, web browser and server market. Once this is in place then you just know these 'standards' will drift away and eventually rely on *Microsoft* standards.

The seamless nature of browsing the internet will eventually disappear.

Eventually Microsoft's servers would be modified to serve content to 'Explorer' only - if you use a different browser you would get a 'blank' screen or message stating 'this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer'.

Internet Explorer would exhibit the same behavior, if it detected a non-Microsoft server again a message would appear instead of the web-site informing the user that the site is unavailable or incompatible.

If you're not running Microsoft Explorer your pages won't render properly - users complain & companies get nervous.
If you're not running a Microsoft server stack your pages won't be served properly - users complain & companies get nervous.

Microsoft become the de-facto standard because it will be *perceived* as the most conservative and least risky option.

If you run your own business you can look forward to ever-increasing overheads.

The barrier to entry will again be high, Microsoft and their many partners are set to earn *huge* revenues and of course any competition will be extinguished.

Microsoft has an abundance of patience and it will probably take years for this to happen.

The Internet as you know it will become bland, colourless, safe, corporation and media friendly.

Embrace, Extend & Extinguish.

It's a sad way of doing business, if they were actually respectful and *co-operate* with IT industry they can still be a successful company without having to destroy everthing.

Is Slashdot in grip of covert MS PR geeks

[smishra]

Looking at the posts recently..I think Slashdot may be seeing mod ups and occasionally posts by organized or semi organized Microsoft PR operatives. The operation seems sophisticated. Somehow posts favoring MS modded up. It is the same half truths but presented in geek speak instead of traditional big corporation PR speak.

These guys may be explicitly paid directly or indirectly by MS to do PR here

or

Given the huge numbers of people employed at the Microsoft it would be a relatively small matter to have a few posting here and modding up favorable posts

Not to mention hardware resource requirements

[walterbyrd]

My debian etch VPS takes up less than 12mb ram, and less 500mb HDD space. The hardware requirements for Server-2008 are astronomical by comparison. But, if you are running some huge commercial site, I don't suppose the hardware requirements are a big deal.

Re:IIS6 Has never been hacked

[JasterBobaMereel]

Sorry which planet are you from?

IIS6 may be solid and so on but if the web sites it hosts get hacked then it is still insecure...?

"The web site has been hacked", "yes but IIE6 is still secure...."

Most of these are down to the insane security model of windows, note the Apache web sites that are most often hacked are the ones running on windows ....

Hardware Demand

[MBHkewl]

So, Microsoft is trying to tell us that their new OS, which demands 64-bit high-end harware and vast amounts of CPU & RAM, is going to get us the same performance as current Pentium3 & Xeon servers running Linux? (With a big question mark on MS's security, of course)

I'd rather dedicate my CPU & RAM to my web users & to the benefit of my web-applications & transactions, rather than help the crummy OS struggle on keeping up...

Re:Hardware Demand

[koa]

Actually, no..

Microsoft has taken yet another page from the *NIX play book and constructed a model called "Server Core" for 2008:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx

This is essentially an ultra-small footprint server installation to run server apps on top of it, it doesnt even have a window manager- you boot directly to the "cmd.exe" prompt.

Gee where have we seen this before- oh i know it started back in the 70s...

Re:IIS6 Has never been hacked

[Toreo asesino]

Ok, but that's like suggesting Apache is insecure because of a vulnerability in php...if a website gets hacked because of a Apache module being exploited, is it Apache's fault? Of course not.

That's my point. By that token IIS6 core is secure. Prove me wrong, mod me flamebait if you want, but it doesn't change the irrefutable fact IIS6 is secure. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary of course.

Christ, even Slashdot had an article mentioning IIS6 never having had any exploits for it. I'll find it if you really want.

open vs. cheap

[Bootarn]

It's interesting to see Microsoft's actions here. They seem to think that the best way to handle an Open Source based competitor is to lower the price, but maintain their current proprietary licence. They just can't let go of the sources, because their belief in proprietary software is rock-solid. It's simply unthinkable. Yet, they're just sitting there while LAMP is gradually taking over the market completely. Sure, price is an important factor when deciding upon which software to use, but that's not all. Microsoft is blind to the fact that businesses is settling for OSS competitors not only for its generally lower price, but also for the customisation possibilities and the fact that bugs generally get squished faster within OSS than in its proprietary counterparts. If Microsoft really wants to reclaim market share, they really need to rethink their licencing.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Blakey Rat]

Yeah, but Google's setup is almost all custom-developed software. They're using their own filesystem, their own proprietary distributed query language/software, their own custom-developed web servers. Sure, some portions of Google's empire are no doubt using off-the-shelf Linux and off-the-shelf scripting environments like Python or Ruby, but the big clusters are all custom jobs.

And when you're talking custom jobs, there's no reason all of that custom software couldn't have been developed on a stripped Windows kernel instead of a stripped Linux kernel. (I'm sure Google had reasons when it started; they were basically two guys in a garage, so cost was an issue. Now it wouldn't be.) If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a stripped Windows kernel would run their custom software better than the stripped Linux/BSD kernel they're using now, they'd switch in a heartbeat. (That said at the kernel level, both OSes are the exact same.)

Anyway, Microsoft does run some hefty sites. The Terraserver (http://terraserver-usa.com/)was put up specifically to show that Windows/IIS/MS SQL can be used to run gigantic website clusters. eBay uses Microsoft servers exclusively, unless that's changed in the last year.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[WebCowboy]

That is just the tip of the Microsoft corporate licensing nightmare. At my government agency employer, we only use Linux for all our web servers. Why? Because we are developers and we want to drop a web/database/file/email/proxy/printer/whatever server wherever it is needed without being bogged down in a sea of Microsoft red tape.

This is exactly why, after an initial promising uptake, MSFT Web Server 2003 ultimately was a dismal failure in meeting its objectives. It's really no trouble at all to manage Windows Web Server licensing in a basic setup--you put in $400, load it up and go. No CALs and other crap. However, when your end users start demanding REAL web hosting, with proper content management, database storage, e-commerce, etc...then MSFT adds zeros to the price. MSFT either thought we were fools and would fall for the lure, or they really lacked an understanding of the market.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there an article on this very website roundabout a month ago describing M$'s server configurations? Weren't they using Windows Server 2k and 2k3? Just because they don't have the search numbers google does, doesn't mean they couldn't handle it if they did.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[ZachPruckowski]

Isn't MySpace run on IIS? Granted, that's almost a point for Linux - as MySpace only scales the way it does because its users will tolerate occaisonal problems, but that's one large MS site.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Foofoobar]

Cost of WindowsOS: $300
Cost of anti-virus:$50
Cost of anti-spyware:$100
Cost of web server:$0 dollars Cost of still crashing and getting hacked: priceless

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[jacquesm]

This thread is not about tech, though no doubt it would make some difference, it is all about licensing.

I don't think microsoft would have a problem paying microsoft their license fees...

Of course to the producer of the software licensing fees are irrelevant, but to others it would be a significant factor.

It would be really cool if google ever did a TCO analysis of their farm based on linux vs the same thing based on solaris or microsoft.

Not that google would ever put their eggs in other peoples basket.

And of course they're much too secretive about their architecture to make such an analysis possible for an outsider.

Subtle abuse of the facts

[mpapet]

1. This so-called progress microsoft claims to make in server license penetration conveniently disregards the fact that the number of OSS server projects is multiplying faster and still growing faster than their numbers.

2. Who buys a windows server license with the expectation that they'll do their own hosting???? Most don't and won't ever. For the person that jumps up and says "I will! It'll run my corporate wiki!" That's one very narrow case in which license compliance (CAL's) would be conveniently disregarded anyway.

3. Most shops have either a site license or run the enterprise versions. They will continue to cook the numbers by offering more sweet deals to hosts like godaddy.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[drspliff]

Why use a stripped Windows kernel instead of a stripped Linux kernel - because it's extremely hard to do. You will not be supported by Microsoft, when shit happens there's little you can do about it because you don't have the ability to fix it yourself...

It's not a case of which OS runs their custom software better, it's a case of 1) cost, 2) vendor tie-ins, 3) in-house expertise. Google do have a huge amount of money, but one of the reasons they stay competative is because they have minimal licensing fees (e.g. they don't have to pay $2k per server). With vendor tie-ins - they are their own vendor, and have years of in-house expertise in Linux to the point where they are almost self sufficient.

Oh, and regarding eBay: http://www.addsimplicity.com/downloads/eBaySDForum2006-11-29.pdf Their using IIS and ISAPI for front-end web servers only, everything behind that is Java and Oracle running on Solaris.

As for Microsoft's terraserver - they're dealing with static data that can easily be distributed across however many servers you want. This is in no way on the same level as what eBay does, and really just proves how expensive Microsoft is - at the time the method they used was to throw lots of money at mid-frame SMP boxen, doing it the other more scalable way (many replicated index servers with content partitioned across low-end servers) would've cost 10x more in licensing.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you're talking custom jobs, there's no reason all of that custom software couldn't have been developed on a stripped Windows kernel instead of a stripped Linux kernel. (I'm sure Google had reasons when it started; they were basically two guys in a garage, so cost was an issue. Now it wouldn't be.) If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a stripped Windows kernel would run their custom software better than the stripped Linux/BSD kernel they're using now, they'd switch in a heartbeat. (That said at the kernel level, both OSes are the exact same.)

You have lost all credibility with this mis-informed comment. Not only do you have Google methods/origins wrong, you proved you know nada, zilch, nothing, about either the Windows or Linux kernels. You are not qualified to comment on anything.

Cmdr Taco please add +1000000 to posters ID.

Can't we all get along?

[HannethCom]

Can't we just use both? I mean Windows are great during the day because it can let free sunlight in during the day. I know this is discourages as this can lead to WIMPy solutions, but we don't have to keep the blinds closed as recommended. Ok, so it doesn't work at all at night, but then you can turn on the LAMPs durning the night. Of course you could use LAMPs all the time because they always work. Unfortunately I'm currently stuck with a WIMPy solution as one of the sites I have contain ASPs.

Re:IIS6 Has never been hacked

[lukas84]

All LAMP systems are completely insecure, did you see how many times phpbb based websites have been hacked in the past?

Same bullshit, different direction.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[fwarren]

there's no reason all of that custom software couldn't have been developed on a stripped Windows kernel instead of a stripped Linux kernel

You could look at this summary http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/ or the actual Whitepaper http://www.securityoffice.net/mssecrets/hotmail.html.

MS wanted to remove the stain of running Hotmail on BSD. It took them years to do it. They were not able to throw enough money at the problem to get Windows to run on a stripped down kernel. As a point of pride MS wanted to get this done and even then, they had to admit at NT back in 99 was to complex for them to strip it down to a 10meg mini system. Or even a 50 meg mini system.

Sure you could have built Google on top of a MS OS but you would lose four things.

1. Hardware Costs, you would have to purchase more hardware because each computer does less, having to carry the weight of a "heavy" Microsoft OS.
2. OS Costs, you to pay for all of those copies of Windows and whatever licenses for connections to web servers and database backends
3. Scalability, the microsoft software you would be building on is not designed to cluster or scale at this level. You would be writing custom tools for it. While that technology is already available in the *nix world for that.
4. Customizations, they run their own database and file systems, which they were able to customize at the OS level. As an MS partner they may be able to access to look at the source code for windows. But they would not have been able to custom compile a system to their liking.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong on the cost aspect. The ~$400 cost is for a retail version. For hosters they use a different license called the SPLA http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default.mspx and the cost is $10 per proc per month. The hoster then resells that to their customers. Also the SMB limit has also been removed. All other back-end products you mention are also in the SPLA and are on a per proc per month cost basis.

Re:IIS6 Has never been hacked

[Spudds]

By that token IIS6 core is secure. Oh please. Take your MS shill BS to some other forum.
A simple google search will prove how idiotic what you're saying is:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IIS6+exploit&btnG=Google+Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 16,700 for IIS6 exploit. (0.43 seconds)

Like this little ditty... example code all over the net for a freaking REMOTE BUFFER OVERFLOW. Again, that's REMOTE, not "well first you need access to the machine" buffer overflow.

Now get off my lawn!

Re:so what

[lysdexia]

Dad?

C'mon Dad, It's time for your meds. How did you get out of bed? ...

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[Macthorpe]

For what it's worth, they're still working on it for Windows 7.

Link here to an article about MinWin, which is also mentioned in the Windows 7 Wikipedia article.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab

[gnuman99]

How do you go from $400 being "measly" that only "Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind" to $5000 and up being "VERY EXPENSIVE"??

As far as I know, prices for non-consumer end software (eg. CAD, programming toolkits, databases) run in range where $5000 is about the middle of the road. "Very Expensive" stuff runs in the $50,000 range and measly is about $500. Also, free (see GNU definition) stuff like GCC, PostgreSQL, Apache is *not* measly because it doesn't cost anything to use.

$5000 is not expensive if putting it on $20,000 machine, but then you'd need a $50,000 license to run on that...

Anyway, for server, Linux + Apache + PostgreSQL for me as that is the software that,

  Just Works

Price is secondary.

*sigh*

[Toreo asesino]

http://secunia.com/product/1438/?task=advisories